The “petra”/”petros” argument is completely bogus, as even a number of quality Protestant exegetes (e.g., D.A. Carson) recognize. “Petra” has feminine gender and can’t be used as a man’s given name. The declension has be switched to a masculine form, hence “petros”.
OF COURSE Peter is the rock!
Because special pleading.
Race,
The Roman Catholic Cultists will be wailing and whining...
Good post.
Hoss
It’s Jesus, referring to himself. He is the rock.
Ping
All this arguing has me petered out.
Why do you accept the 27 books of the NT, as provided by the Catholic Church, but reject the Catholic Church teaching on the Papacy. Do you have a list of you favorite Catholic teachings which you accept?
Exactly, I build my life on Christ not on Peter, nor a “church”, but rather a personal relationship with God only made possible through not what I have or will do, but what He has done and who He is!!
Obviously Jesus is the Rock, the Foundation.
I never had any problem with the idea that Jesus was saying the Church would be founded through Peter.
It doesn’t support claims of exclusive Roman Catholicity even if He was referring to Peter in that verse.
Thanks for a Good Sunday morning Read.
You forget Peter was forgiven by Christ.
Very good summation of Who the Rock is, Yeshua Messiah.
Interesting convolutions to justify heresy.
An outstanding exegesis. It is so clear in the scriptures, so res ipsa loquitor, that I am sadly reminded of our Jewish brothers and sisters, who had eyes, but could not see and ears, but could not hear. Rather fitting that the Isaiah 8:14 stumbling STONE is called to mind.
I certainly don’t suggest that my Catholic brothers and sisters have rejected the corner stone. They have not and for that reason I can have fellowship with them and worship Christ with them. It’s just this issues of Papal authority and who the actual church and bride of Christ is.
Everytime their is a name change there is a change in time and status. All these linguistic gymnastics are a relatively new line of thinking...and didn’t exist for the first...say 1500 years of the church. Weird how people keep referring the the founding cathers and their writings to best understand the constitutions meaning...yet the same deference is not given to the earliest fathers of the Church...
This is very similar to the Mormon interpretation, who is that the rock referred to by Jesus was the rock of revelation.
Very good analysis. The subject of Jesus’ declaration of the “Rock” was Peter’s ANSWER. That answer, which acknowledged Jesus’ unity with God, is the rock upon Jesus built his Church. Think about it - is that concept, that teaching, not THE fundamental truth of Christianity? If course it is.
This doesn’t denigrate Peter in any way. In fact, Jesus holds him up as exemplifying the faith and understanding that comprises the true “church” of Christianity. But that doesn’t make Peter the LEADER of the Church! Such a conclusion is actually against that very teaching! Jesus had JUST praised Peter for acknowledging JESUS as the head of His Church!
This passage is the crux of the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, and I personally believe it was done by Jesus to try to STOP anyone from claiming themselves “Pope” in his stead.
On the other hand, throwing the entity of Catholicism out because of the Pope issue is also foolish IMHO. Because the Catholic Church is, nevertheless, a repository of deep wisdom and learning and GENUINE Christianity.
I also believe, however, that it will take Jesus returning and grabbing EVERYONE by the back of the neck to resolve this issue, so I don’t lose sleep over it... anymore...
Tl;dr: Peter was a perpetual heel in the New Testament, Goofus to Paul’s Gallant. Lovely.
Does that about sum it up?